The Truth About Pokemon’s Starters

In case you missed the memo yesterday, Nintendo has just announced Pokemon X and Y for the Nintendo 3DS.  It’s the sixth game in the series and the sixth time they have starters that are fire, water and grass-themed.

But even after all these games, I’ve never quite made the connection before between the starting Pokemon over the years. I’ve featured the image above before, but that’s not what I brought you here to look at. Rather, that would be a very long image below that explains what I’m talking about here. Turns out Nintendo knows what they’re doing, and have planned out these types from the get-go. Or someone just invented a connection that was purely accidental, but I doubt it.

See what the hell I’m talking about below:

Similar Posts


  1. Bug, Dark, Psychic would be a nice secondary trio set, but they’ll never change up the formula. Which is a fucking shame since Bug-types are the best.

  2. @E How did you manage to point out that the Fennekin isn’t a dog, but not that Chimchar isn’t a monkey?

    Anyway, to help E set the record straight, Fennekin is based off of a Fennec fox, which are not dogs…and Chimchar is a chimpanzee, which are not monkeys. Other than that, great comparisons.

  3. @Embercoral Foxes are not essentially wolves, nor wolves essentially wild dogs. Wild dogs, like domesticated dogs fall into the true dog or Canini tribe while foxes fall into the Vulpini tribe. While foxes, dogs, and wolves fall into the same Family, Humans and other great apes fall into the same Family as well, so E’s statement was valid

  4. Yes, dogs and wolves are not even the same species, even though we are discussing a fox.

    I do believe SOME of the plant starters were based on dinosaurs as bulbasaur was, so they decided to carry it on for a FEW more starters.

    Charazard is a dragon which is a mythical chinese animal, therefore that is probably what “ignited” the idea of using chinese animals.

    The water starters seem a bit odd since none of them are a fish based animal, but they may have wanted to keep in “interesting”.

    I do believe the starters ( or pokemon in general) have become less and less interesting/impressive as the new stories come out.

  5. Am I really going to be the first to point out that Axolotls ARE fully aquatic? That’s why they keep their gills.

    Also, does anyone else find it odd that Chimchar goes from an ape (no tail) to a monkey (tail), representing a backwards evolution from that of humans? Treeko is similar in that Geckos are a more recent branch of reptile than are dinosaurs.

    Torchik’s evolutions still bewilder me, since it loses wings and gains arms and hands, thus going from chicken to ungodly bird/human hybrid.

    And finally, just to weigh in on the dog bit, all domestic dogs are selectively bred from grey wolves (essentially making them a subspecies of wolf), whereas wild dogs are another species altogether. While foxes ARE canids, they are the least related to dogs out of all canids.

    Also, calling Cyndaquil a rat isn’t quite right. It is described as a “fire mouse” but looks more like an echidna.

    All in all, I don’t buy it. I think someone hashed this together.

  6. Mudkips are Mudpuppies, not Axolotls.

    A Mudpuppy is a species of salamander that does not loose it’s gills or fin-like tail even after completing its metamorphosis into adulthood. Despite having lungs and the ability to live on land, it prefers living in the later.

    As for an Axolotl. It’s a species of salamander that mostly fails to undergo full metamorphosis into it’s adult stage, keeping it’s gills and fins, never gaining it’s ability to live out of water, leaving it fully-aquatic. There are very few known studies of a Axolotl reaching adulthood, but the metamorphosis can be force with an injection that replaces the missing hormones the species lacks to reach it’s adult stage. In it’s adult stage, it would loose it’s gills like many other salamander, unlike the Mudpuppy.

    To finish off, I’ll just point out two thing about the Mudkip:
    1) They keep their gills and fins throughout their evolutionary stages.
    2a) The hints to a Pokémon’s origin is usually in the name itself.
    2b) MUDkip MUDpuppy.

    Thank you for reading.

  7. I just think it’s interesting to see that many are making evolutionary and phylogenetic examples of pokemon lines themselves (e.g. Charmander – Charizard and vice versa, etc.) even though individuals don’t typically “evolve,” but populations.

    I just think that although that statement just kind of debunks the series itself, it just doesn’t fit right. So it’s just kind of difficult to make statements like that in the first place.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.